IN THE BEGINNING GOD......

[marksman]

I remember about 25 years ago, speaking at a fledgling church one Sunday morning. My topic was "In the Beginning God." I don't remember much about what I said as I spoke without notes of any kind. I relied entirely on the Holy Spirit to give me the words that I was to speak.

I know that I said the whole of life hinged on these four words. Unless we believed that in the beginning God, we entered all sorts of speculation about life itself and more importantly, we fall prey to the fallacy of evolution.

Which is exactly what has happened for many Christians? As I peruse Christian forums on the Net, I am amazed how many so called Christians vigorously defend evolution. Many believe that God's creation and evolution can sit side by side. Many contend that the earth is billions of years old. Many contend that God started it all with the big bang. Many contend that six literal days is pure conjecture. Many contend that man from apes is logical. Many contend that man is just another one of the animal species. Many contend that evolution is an explanation for Genesis one.

It is becoming hard to find those who believe that creation happened as it said it did in Genesis one. Despite the fact that everything has to have a beginning, Christians are having a hard time accepting that God was the beginning who created the beginning of time and the universe.

Like so much of scripture we have become very adept at turning something that is simple into something complicated. Too often, sermons add to what is already there to the point that they add what is not there.

A simple story used to illustrate a simple principle of Christian living becomes an esoteric application of some doctrine which quite often ignores the purpose of the story in the first place. As a result, when all is said and done, more is said than done. The sermon just becomes a theological treatise with no real meaning and no call to action or requirement to be applied.

Bearing in mind that we only retain 20% of what we hear, most sermons are a waste of time. Yet we persist in such a failed method and think we are doing a great job because we pay someone to prepare and present what is in the end much ado about nothing.

Getting back to my original comment, I cannot imagine anything more stupid that trying to justify man made evolution in the light of the awesomeness of “in the beginning God...”

It is picturesque, poetic, awesome, majestic, life giving, breathtaking, brilliant, imaginative, creative, eye opening, infinite, indefinable, absorbing, and limitless, beyond comprehension and so on and so on.

For me, knowing that in the beginning God, is so reassuring and life giving. Without God as the maker of all things, we are left to the speculation of man's puny efforts to explain the universe and a lot of cases explain it away as something infinitely complex brought about by design. They would rather believe in big bangs, ponds, slime, things happening by chance, and mankind as the product of some primeval process that just makes us another animal species.

How dull, boring and totally implausible. When you look at the achievements of mankind and his ability to find clues to processes and produce life saving medicines to say that all this was a product of chance is to say the least, quite incredulous.

In the beginning God explains so many things to us right down to the incredible workings of the DNA and the fact that every human being has a different DNA to everyone else. Chance? I am sorry; I just don't have the faith to believe that.

According to zoological experts, every Zebra has a different stripe pattern. Millions of them. Chance? I am sorry, but I don't have the faith to believe that.

It would appear that every human being apart from having their own individual DNA, have their own set of individual fingerprints. Chance? I am sorry; I don't have enough faith to believe that.

What I do have enough faith for is that a great big benevolent God decided to be God and create a magnificent solar system for no other reason than he could, and in the midst of it all he decided to create a man in his image to enjoy the magnificence of his creation and out of his side he created "woman" to enjoy it with him and so they could procreate and populate his garden of Eden or what is commonly known as his utopia.

If sin had not interfered that is how it still would be. If Jesus had not died on the cross and rose again, there would be no hope of experiencing it once again. All we are left with is doom and gloom and death, eternal death. There is no doubt that the atheists and evolutionists have a death wish and what they wish for they are going to get.

The disciple of Jesus however, has eternal life to look forward to and experience. The sort that was there in the beginning.....God. Need I say anymore?

 

[Suhar]

Seems like large number of Christians believe in the very small, very feeble, very distant and ignorant God. God who cannot possibly create anything in just six days, God who is some very distant God who wrote the book and forgot all about His creation, went on vacation or something. Some even believe that God is so small and remote that some old guy in fancy nightgown can control all access to Him!

If only most Christians knew how awesome real God is! How powerful, how personable, how close and real God is!

 

[aspen]

do you have a topic or just an observation?

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Col_1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

The above is what I believe, but is the bible really about creation? No, it is about God’s covenant with man. If we try to make the earth only 6000 years old, we leave a lot of evidence to the contrary. That evidence seems to make the Christian belief void to many.

My thoughts are humans were probably created many years, maybe millions, before but the first covenant was with Adam and that is where the bible begins 6000 years ago. (Do we realize that many times in the bible, heaven and earth, to the Jews, meant where God and man did meet) Adam and God came together in the garden and in the middle of the garden was the tree of life, Abraham took Isaac to Mount Moriah to sacrifice him, Jacob wrestled with the angel of God on Mount Moriah, and Solomon built the temple on Mount Moriah, all being at the same place, according to many Jewish scholars.

God was is in no rush to do things, but he did want a people who would serve him because they wanted to. If we look at Genesis as the beginning of the covenant with man and the book of revelation as the completion of that covenant, it makes sense. If it makes sense, it is probably right.

Nothing to prove the above, just another thought.

 

[Follower2]

Nothing here to add, but I just wanted to say how much I liked

Rocky Wiley's post. Thank you. I enjoyed the first past too.

 

[Suhar]

The above is what I believe, but is the bible really about creation? No, it is about God’s covenant with man. If we try to make the earth only 6000 years old, we leave a lot of evidence to the contrary. That evidence seems to make the Christian belief void to many

You leave a whole lot more evidence to support young Earth and you void the Bible but it does not seem to be a problem for you.

 

[FHII]

I liked rocky's post too

 

[marksman]

Rock Wiley MAY be right but what is important to us is the bit in Genesis. Obviously if Rock Wiley is right it is of no consequence to the believer as God has chosen not to include that aspect in his dealings with man. It is speculation that will not change a thing in our relationship with God or our salvation and how it came about.

My conviction is that the bible as we know it is a mine of information and wonder which takes all the intelligence and faith we have to fathom, so I prefer not to add more supposition to try and grapple with.

 

[HammerStone]

Well, this is where I disagree a bit.

One of my problems with the fundamentalist/anti-modernist interpretation is the insistence on Genesis being a 100% literal account. (Note, this is not name-calling, it's just an observation of where this argument resides in terms of camps.) I take issue with this because there are a number of sincere believers who believe God was quite in control be it for 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years. There is enough in the Bible for it be at least somewhat ambivalent.

I also find the argument that folks who do not tow the line on Young Earth Creationism(YEC) deny God's power a bit malformed because the same charge could be leveled against the YEC folks. All I have to do is to reverse the argument and simply say that the YEC folks deny God's power because they assert that God must have only used 6 days to create the Earth because it's the only way to explain the continuity of creation. That's as much of a limit of God's power as the former.

Where this comes to a head is that the usage of the term evolution sends one into an angry tirade or running for the hills. I think one should tread carefully when cutting others off from the faith because of a belief in this form of creationism (or that one). If you want to talk the historicity of Adam, then you could make a case. However, if you believe "In the beginning God..." regardless of how long or via what method, I think you get the thrust of the creation account once you couple that with the failure of humanity.

 

[horsecamp]

Well, this is where I disagree a bit.

One of my problems with the fundamentalist/anti-modernist interpretation is the insistence on Genesis being a 100% literal account. (Note, this is not name-calling, it's just an observation of where this argument resides in terms of camps.) I take issue with this because there are a number of sincere believers who believe God was quite in control be it for 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years. There is enough in the Bible for it be at least somewhat ambivalent.

I also find the argument that folks who do not tow the line on Young Earth Creationism(YEC) deny God's power a bit malformed because the same charge could be leveled against the YEC folks. All I have to do is to reverse the argument and simply say that the YEC folks deny God's power because they assert that God must have only used 6 days to create the Earth because it's the only way to explain the continuity of creation. That's as much of a limit of God's power as the former.

Where this comes to a head is that the usage of the term evolution sends one into an angry tirade or running for the hills. I think one should tread carefully when cutting others off from the faith because of a belief in this form of creationism (or that one). If you want to talk the historicity of Adam, then you could make a case. However, if you believe "In the beginning God..." regardless of how long or via what method, I think you get the thrust of the creation account once you couple that with the failure of humanity

You dont really exspect Creationists to sit back and watch other shipwreck their faith do ya ?
its not creationists that are the problem its public schools colleges universitities that teach junk science simply because the natural man wants nothing to do with being accountable to God and they will do every thing in their power to reject what they know the bible says ..

as the bible says they delibertly forget! that in the begining God created the heavens and earth ..

NOW IF God really wanted those he took out of egypt to rest on the sabbath day.. which he set up after the 6 days of creation .. he certainly would not have taken millions of years for each creation day now would he .. If he did that not any one would have lived long enough to have even one sabbath ..

there are no problems with what the bible really says ,, the problem all start when some one decides to make the bible more reasonable more platable more in line
with what some non believers think .. instead of letting the bible trump their reason which would be the christian thing for a person to do.

yet we can show from scripture itself God created all in 6 normal days

http://lutheranscience.org/2008-Genesis-1.html

• Once A PERSON REJECTS THAT GOD MADE THE EARTH IN 6 DAYS..
• ITS IS SO MUCH EASIER for that person LATER IN LIFE to use their reason once again to trump what God says AND FOR THEM TO REJECT JESUS ROSE BODLY OR THAT Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus .. soon after they have ship wrecked their own faith in Jesus being God AND DYING FOR THEIR FORGIVNESS ..

The Bible tells us that Adam was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old AS THE BIBLE SAYS , and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems.

KEN HAM

AIG

-
HOW OLD is the earth according to the Bible? The following timeline by Theodore Pederson appeared in The Christian News, March 26, 2001, page 18.
How old is the earth?
If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”
If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

 

[aspen]

Scientists and fundamentalists are literalists. They are two sides of the same coin. Modernism demands that we place restrictions on the Bible that sacrifice logic and reason for consistency. It is really damaging for spiritual growth and credibility.

Christians find themselves forced into a literalist corner when reading stories like Creation and the Flood, which focuses on defending a literal interpretation rather than contemplating the message of the text, which is the power and majesty of God. It also separates us from the Western mindset, which values evidence and reason.

Scientists are just as committed to a literal, narrow view of evidence - which ends up pushing them into extrapolating into areas they have no business going like the origin of the universe and parallel universes - there is not concrete evidence for either idea.

I think it is time for us to recognize the limitations of literalism.

 

[Suhar]

Modernism demands that we place restrictions on the Bible

Looks like you are Modernist. No human being is to place restrictions on the Word of God. You are a Humanist and Modernist.

 

[aspen]

Looks like you are Modernist. No human being is to place restrictions on the Word of God. You are a Humanist and Modernist.

LOL.....ok Suhar.

If you believe I am a Modernist, I guess I must be a Fundamentalist and literalist too.......

 

[KingJ]

I remember about 25 years ago, speaking at a fledgling church one Sunday morning. My topic was "In the Beginning God." I don't remember much about what I said as I spoke without notes of any kind. I relied entirely on the Holy Spirit to give me the words that I was to speak....

Good post, thanks for the effort!

My thoughts are...One day when people actually use their God given brains or are simply honest we will all agree on the following:

1. This world is limited by the laws of physics and the only plausible belief is that there is a Creator not limited by the laws of physics.
2. Intelligent design exists and can never be debunked.
3. Humans cannot live with a T-Rex or dragon. Adam was made above and given power over all animals, a T-rex would eat him. Gen 1:1 says the Holy Spirit was hovering over water. It makes most sense that God prepared the earth for mankind.
4. Mankind was made intelligent from the start, just beneath angels. Hence ALL mankind needs a Saviour. Hence Jesus died for ALL mankind. Adam's father was never and could never have been a chimpanzee. When did God figure chimps were accountable for sin? Adam went to his chimp father for advice on rejecting God? His chimp father is not mentioned as he is not accountable?
5. God would have mentioned evolution in scripture if it were true.

Conclusion: No Christian can accept evolution and scripture.They are simply guilty of Rev 22:19. Why are they not visiting the zoo and witnessing to chimps as they would to kids?

Col_1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

The above is what I believe, but is the bible really about creation? No, it is about God’s covenant with man. If we try to make the earth only 6000 years old, we leave a lot of evidence to the contrary. That evidence seems to make the Christian belief void to many.

My thoughts are humans were probably created many years, maybe millions, before but the first covenant was with Adam and that is where the bible begins 6000 years ago. (Do we realize that many times in the bible, heaven and earth, to the Jews, meant where God and man did meet) Adam and God came together in the garden and in the middle of the garden was the tree of life, Abraham took Isaac to Mount Moriah to sacrifice him, Jacob wrestled with the angel of God on Mount Moriah, and Solomon built the temple on Mount Moriah, all being at the same place, according to many Jewish scholars.

Terrible discerning. If the bible is not about creation why do we have a verse like Psalm 8:5 You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. You either accept scripture or you reject it. If you sit on the fence then publicly declare you are a false prophet.

Nobody must manipulate the bible to fit modern propaganda. Why in the universe do you think the devil has given us evolution? It is to drop confidence in scripture. DMS Watson quoted '' the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible''.

The age of the earth must be seen as a completely separate issue to evolution! God is timeless. The universe / earth / His living quarters can be older then we can count for all we know. The age of the earth undermines nothing. Evolution directly undermines scripture / the cross. I can be forgiven for thinking heretic / false prophet / liar whenever I hear a ''Christian'' support evolution.

Scientists and fundamentalists are literalists. They are two sides of the same coin. Modernism demands that we place restrictions on the Bible that sacrifice logic and reason for consistency. It is really damaging for spiritual growth and credibility.

Christians find themselves forced into a literalist corner when reading stories like Creation and the Flood, which focuses on defending a literal interpretation rather than contemplating the message of the text, which is the power and majesty of God. It also separates us from the Western mindset, which values evidence and reason.

Scientists are just as committed to a literal, narrow view of evidence - which ends up pushing them into extrapolating into areas they have no business going like the origin of the universe and parallel universes - there is not concrete evidence for either idea.

I think it is time for us to recognize the limitations of literalism.

Scripture is either the truth / word of God or it is not. Do you get that? Meditate on it for a while.... There is God...He gave us His word...He is not a liar...everything written must be dealt with / accepted. Figurative / metaphorical interpretations of scripture are most often simply ignoring / dodging / adding to the word of God.

Verses you need to deal with are John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 5:39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me. 2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

 

[aspen]

King J - recognizing the truth of the Bible does not always require a literal interpretation. I will consider the possibility that I am calling Jesus a liar, as soon as you acquire the capacity for abstract thought

 

[Dodo_David]

Plenty of modern-day Western Christians believe that every detail of every verse in Genesis is literally true. However, this belief is not universally accepted by Jewish and Christian theologians. The ancient Hebrews did not think the same way that modern-day Western people think, and the book of Genesis is of ancient Hebrew origin. So, modern-day theologians take into consideration the way that the ancient Hebrews interpreted Genesis.

Regarding the proper way to interpret ancient Hebrew writings, Christian theologian William Barclay quotes Old Testament scholar Rev. C.J. Ball as saying the following:

“The Rabbi embodies his lesson in a story, whether parable or allegory or seeming historical narrative; and the last thing he or his disciples would think of is to ask whether the selected persons, events and circumstances which so vividly suggest the doctrine are in themselves real or fictitious. The doctrine is everything; the mode of presentation has no independent value. To make the story the first consideration, and the doctrine it was intended to convey an afterthought as we, with our dry Western literalness, are predisposed to, is to reverse the Jewish order of thinking, and to do unconscious injustice to the authors of many edifying narratives of antiquity.”1

Barclay adds, “This is to say that Jewish teachers were more concerned with truth than with fact. They are not interested in the momentary historical events of any story; they are interested only in the eternal truth which the story is designed to illuminate and to convey.”2

Jewish theologian Gunther Plaut writes, “The contemporary reader familiar with the history and the nature of the text will have to remember that a literal translation of the Torah may lead to grave misconceptions. Even the ancient Jewish sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally.”3

Jewish theologian Nahum Sarna writes, “The literalist approach serves to direct attention to those aspects of the narrative that reflect the time and place of its composition, while it tends to obscure the elements that are meaningful and enduring, thus destroying the biblical message and destroying its relevancy.”4

Indeed, modern-day Christian clergy don't insist on a strict literal interpretation of every Old Testament verse. For example, Joshua 10:12-13 states the following:

"At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day."

The above verses say that the Sun stood still, reflecting the ancient belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. We now know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We understand that the above verses reflect how things appeared to Joshua, and yet we also understand that, if any celestial body stopped moving, then it was the Earth, not the Sun.

So, if a strict literal interpretation is not applied to a Bible verse, then the verse can still be authoritative and teach a spiritual truth. Although the Sun did not literally stand still in Joshua 10:12-13, that passage still tells us that God is in full control of events, and that God used his omnipotence to help the Israelites defeat the Amorites in combat. It didn't matter which celestial object (if any) actually stood still. What mattered is that the God of Israel was the one responsible for the miracle, and the God of Israel was glorified as a result.

Regarding the creation story of Genesis 1, modern-day westerners don't necessarily understand it the same way that the ancient Hebrews understood it.

Was it necessary for every little detail of the story to be literally true in order for the ancient Hebrews understand the story's spiritual
message? Not necessarily.


1 William Barclay, The Mind of Christ (Harper & Row: 1961), p. 79.
2 Ibid.
3 Gunther Plaut, Torah Commentary (Union of American Hebrew Congregations: 1981), p. xx.
4 Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis (Melton Research Center of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1966), p. 66.

 

[marksman]

Barclay adds, “This is to say that Jewish teachers were more concerned with truth than with fact. They are not interested in the momentary historical events of any story; they are interested only in the eternal truth which the story is designed to illuminate and to convey.”

I am taking just one quote of yours to backdrop what I am saying. My original post did not concern itself with literal definitions of the creation story. It only concerned itself with one fact and that was "In the beginning God..." That means how you interpret the setting is not relevant. What is important is whether you believe that in the beginning God or you believe that in the beginning...nothing.

Logic would tell you that in the beginning there was nothing but before there was nothing there was God as he said I am that I am. In other words, he is always in the present tense so he preceded anything. That something came into being was an act of creation brought about by God who always was. If he wasn't then he is not I am that I am.

Without God, everything is "What if..." With God everything is not what if but the truth that sets you free.

Strange as it may seem, evolutionists cannot prove one single thing about evolution. All they can do is conjecture. The latest theory is that man evolved from a chimp and a pig that mated. The person who claims this says that it is a theory so what that means is nothing more than conjecture.

I could add my two bits and say I have a theory that man evolved from a fish who copulated with a sea horse. That is my theory and until anyone proves otherwise, I am sticking to it.

The fact is evolutionists cannot explain the origin of life other than a denial that God had anything to do with it.

The fact is that what evolutionists call evolution is in fact nothing more than adaptation. Before the adaptation it was a dog. After the adaptation it is a dog.

Beyond a trite recital of things like finches beaks on the Galapagos Islands, most evolutionists cannot answer the most basic of questions which show that God is in charge and the creator of all. Even university professors who teach evolution are stumped when you ask how was DNA formed.

So, a literal or a more nuanced understanding of Genesis one is not relevant. What is relevant is do you believe that in the beginning God...

 

[Dodo_David]

Strange as it may seem, evolutionists cannot prove one single thing about evolution. All they can do is conjecture. The latest theory is that man evolved from a chimp and a pig that mated. The person who claims this says that it is a theory so what that means is nothing more than conjecture.

I'm not an evolutionist, but I do know what a scientific theory is and what modern evolution theory actually says. They aren't what you say they are.

 

[horsecamp]

Plenty of modern-day Western Christians believe that every detail of every verse in Genesis is literally true. However, this belief is not universally accepted by Jewish and Christian theologians. The ancient Hebrews did not think the same way that modern-day Western people think, and the book of Genesis is of ancient Hebrew origin. So, modern-day theologians take into consideration the way that the ancient Hebrews interpreted Genesis.

Regarding the proper way to interpret ancient Hebrew writings, Christian theologian William Barclay quotes Old Testament scholar Rev. C.J. Ball as saying the following:

“The Rabbi embodies his lesson in a story, whether parable or allegory or seeming historical narrative; and the last thing he or his disciples would think of is to ask whether the selected persons, events and circumstances which so vividly suggest the doctrine are in themselves real or fictitious. The doctrine is everything; the mode of presentation has no independent value. To make the story the first consideration, and the doctrine it was intended to convey an afterthought as we, with our dry Western literalness, are predisposed to, is to reverse the Jewish order of thinking, and to do unconscious injustice to the authors of many edifying narratives of antiquity.”1

Barclay adds, “This is to say that Jewish teachers were more concerned with truth than with fact. They are not interested in the momentary historical events of any story; they are interested only in the eternal truth which the story is designed to illuminate and to convey.”2

Jewish theologian Gunther Plaut writes, “The contemporary reader familiar with the history and the nature of the text will have to remember that a literal translation of the Torah may lead to grave misconceptions. Even the ancient Jewish sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally.”3

Jewish theologian Nahum Sarna writes, “The literalist approach serves to direct attention to those aspects of the narrative that reflect the time and place of its composition, while it tends to obscure the elements that are meaningful and enduring, thus destroying the biblical message and destroying its relevancy.”4

Indeed, modern-day Christian clergy don't insist on a strict literal interpretation of every Old Testament verse. For example, Joshua 10:12-13 states the following:

"At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day."

The above verses say that the Sun stood still, reflecting the ancient belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. We now know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We understand that the above verses reflect how things appeared to Joshua, and yet we also understand that, if any celestial body stopped moving, then it was the Earth, not the Sun.

So, if a strict literal interpretation is not applied to a Bible verse, then the verse can still be authoritative and teach a spiritual truth. Although the Sun did not literally stand still in Joshua 10:12-13, that passage still tells us that God is in full control of events, and that God used his omnipotence to help the Israelites defeat the Amorites in combat. It didn't matter which celestial object (if any) actually stood still. What mattered is that the God of Israel was the one responsible for the miracle, and the God of Israel was glorified as a result.

Regarding the creation story of Genesis 1, modern-day westerners don't necessarily understand it the same way that the ancient Hebrews understood it.

Was it necessary for every little detail of the story to be literally true in order for the ancient Hebrews understand the story's spiritual
message? Not necessarily.


1 William Barclay, The Mind of Christ (Harper & Row: 1961), p. 79.
2 Ibid.
3 Gunther Plaut, Torah Commentary (Union of American Hebrew Congregations: 1981), p. xx.
4 Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis (Melton Research Center of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1966), p. 66

ancient jewish theologians lied and schemmed to have Jesus MURDERED .. before that they had there people make a golden calf..
now there trying to discredit how God created the earth ..

and were suppose to be completly amazed and shocked at this latests developement ..???
God says all men are liers
thats why we could care less about every thing excepting the context of the text .. no where in the biblical context does it suggest we are to take the creation story as picture language..

even non christian hebrew scholars admit this .. while still holding to their Talmud Traditions of hate..


http://creation.com/hebrew-scholar-affirms-that-genesis-means-what-it-says-ting-wang

 

[marksman]

I'm not an evolutionist, but I do know what a scientific theory is and what modern evolution theory actually says. They aren't what you say they are.

I have only told you what evolutionists have said. Evolutionary theory is a shifting sand. When I first started to study evolution the consensus was the the earth was 200 million years old. Later it was said it 800 million. This was followed by 2 billion. This was increased to 3.5 billion. Not be outdone the earth was reckoned to be 8 billion. The last I heard from Christopher Hitchens was 13.5 billion years old.

In other words they don't know. It is nothing more than conjecture. If what they say is not evolutionary theory, they are up the creek without a paddle.